Replies

She probably only did computerized genealogy searches and made the decision to filter the results for the most likely common ancestor, John Lackland, because he was already known to be an ancestor for 20 presidents. With a directed search, it would take no time at all.

I respectfully disagree that a 'directed' computer search of 500,000 names would take 'no time at all.'

You have to input names. You have to review the results. You have to check each set of results to see how it fits with other results that you have; it's like fitting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The problem is that so many published genealogical records are garbage.

Getting into the DAR, SAR, DoC and other organizations was a source of pride or society in small towns and applications were often accepted based on one's family status and not the quality of research. Census records were taken once a decade. Wives who were married after one census year and died (childbirth, typhoid, smallpox) before the next never appear in a census - but the next wife appears to be the mother of the children in the census. Other genealogical records of the same family, based on a family Bible, will show an entirely different mother.

You can't reconcile those differences with a directed computer search and nobody, not even the LDS, knows which records are wrong or right for many families.

If 'directed computer searches' worked, then genealogy as a hobby wouldn't be so interesting . . . or so difficult.

Years ago I corresponded with a fifth cousin who is a Mormon. Later I found that he had entered the data I had sent him into the Mormon records--in some cases the information was uncertain or may have been wrong, but now others will see the records and assume all the information is accurate.

I did the research to get my mother into the DAR. I found some distant cousins of hers who had joined the DAR under their common ancestor, and she joined under that ancestor. I now think that the records that were accepted for that ancestor's Revolutionary War service were for a different man of the same name, not even related to our ancestor (unless related way back in England) and that our ancestor was living in a different state at the time of the Revolutionary War.

The first person to join the DAR under that ancestor was a prominent lady and they may have been less inclined to scrutinize the evidence too closely in her case--but I think there were many cases of sloppy research in the early years. My understanding is that they are now much stricter in their standards of proof.

I know the SAR is very demanding in requiring proof of the ancestor's service and in proving descent every generation down to the person who wants to join.